Help interpreting Stanford-Binet results?

[Kathryn]

My son was given the Stanford-Binet as part of his autism evaluation early this year (he was 5y3m at the time and was diagnosed with high-functioning autism). I am wondering if the results of this test have anything to tell me about his strengths/weaknesses, but I don't know how to interpret them.

 

I know there were a lot of questions that he knew the answers to that he got "wrong." During the test, he refused to do several tasks (entirely omitting an entire section) that involved talking. Sometimes he would write his answer instead of speaking. I'm not sure how that affected his scores. He also thinks it's funny to get things wrong, so on the "puzzle"-type questions, he would do it completely wrong and then she would ask him to do it right and he would. Again, I am not sure how that was scored. And then towards the end, he got bored and just said "I don't know" for a lot of things.

 

So, do these results help me at all? Is there anything I can glean from them that will help me understand better his strengths and weaknesses?

 

I have copied below what the report we were given said:

 

He was administered the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB-V) as a measure of cognitive developmental skills and to assess behavior in a structured, task-oriented situation. The SB-V yields a Full Scale IQ standard score that is comprised of his performances across the Nonverbal and Verbal Domains, Factor Scores are also calculated.

 

These reflect different areas of cognitive competencies and are comprised of both verbal and nonverbal skills. On the SB-V, his scores indicated a Nonverbal IQ standard score of 112 (High Average Range) and a Verbal IQ standard score of 119 (High Average Range). His Full Scale IQ score was a 116 (High Average Range).

 

Within the nonverbal domain, his scores across factors assessed generally indicated skills slightly above what would be expected for the majority of children his same age. With regard to his performances within the verbal domain, demonstrated abilities across factors generally measured in the

High Average range. One exception to this pattern was his verbal performance in the area of working memory, which produced a score in the Low Average range for age. However, it should be noted that he refused to perform this task.

 

His scores on the SB-V are summarized in the table below:

 

Nonverbal Subtests

Fluid Reasoning 15

Knowledge 7

Quantitative Reasoning 12

Visual Spatial 12

Working Memory 13

 

Verbal Subtests

Fluid Reasoning 16

Knowledge 12

Quantitative Reasoning 12

Visual Spatial 12

Working Memory --

 

IQ Scores**

Full Scale IQ 116

Nonverbal IQ 112

Verbal IQ 119

Factor Index Scores**

Fluid Reasoning 132

Knowledge 97

Quantitative Reasoning 111

Visual Spatial 111

Working Memory 80

 

*(Mean:10; SD:3) **(Mean:100; SD=15)

 

On the SB-V, a measure of cognitive abilities, he demonstrated skills largely in the high average range of functioning. ln regard to relative weaknesses he demonstrated some struggles with verbal working memory and refused to engage in some testing.

[Kathryn]

Bumping. Any help appreciated!

[wapiti]

I don't know the SB5 as none of my kids have taken that one yet. I'd look for disparities in the scores - relative highs and lows. E.g., it looks like working memory is a relative weakness according to the Factor Index, though I don't know how the scoring on this test works, because it doesn't look low under the Nonverbal section (what happened with the verbal working memory?).

 

I'd also keep in mind that, in my experience anyway, the scores at that age aren't necessarily "accurate" in terms of being reflective of ability where you might have a late bloomer or LDs involved. In other words, kids develop and evolve differently where there are LDs, and the picture might look quite different in a few years. Also, a different test such as the WISC might turn out different scores (higher or lower, it all depends). For example, there could be LDs which pull down the scores, and later on if those LDs are remediated or developmental delays are improved due to time, you could see higher scores. Conversely, if you do the test again in a few years, more might be demanded at the higher grade level, and LDs could impact the scores more than at present, resulting in lower scores (this happened to one of my kids with the WISC, verbal dropping by more than a standard deviation in a three-year time period).

 

If the psych who did the testing did not do an analysis/conference/report with you, it's certainly possible to take your scores to a psych for an opinion (preferrably one who is an expert with LDs). It's not quite the same as having the tester's personal observations included in the analysis, but it might still give you some interesting info.

 

Let me see if I can find some SB5 links:

 

The SB5 measures spatial abilities. (GDC)

 

a thread from the Davidson website containing more links

 

list of links on the SB5 at Hoagies

 

HTH :)

[Kathryn]

Thank you!

 

I don't know the SB5 as none of my kids have taken that one yet. I'd look for disparities in the scores - relative highs and lows. E.g., it looks like working memory is a relative weakness according to the Factor Index, though I don't know how the scoring on this test works, because it doesn't look low under the Nonverbal section (what happened with the verbal working memory?).

 

He refused to do the verbal working memory section at all. He was supposed to talk to the tester about pictures on cards she was holding up, but nothing could convince him to do it. So, if he had completed that section, I would think that his verbal IQ score would be a lot higher than his nonverbal, since it's already higher? What constitutes "verbal" vs. "non-verbal" on these tests?

 

 

If the psych who did the testing did not do an analysis/conference/report with you, it's certainly possible to take your scores to a psych for an opinion (preferrably one who is an expert with LDs). It's not quite the same as having the tester's personal observations included in the analysis, but it might still give you some interesting info.

 

My impression was that the sole purpose for the test was to determine whether to label him "high-functioning." When DH asked what gave him the "high-functioning" label, the psych said because his IQ score was above normal. That was the only discussion of the test, and what I provided above was the only report of it. I was just wondering if it could help me in any other way.

 

I know from doing the Developing the Early Learner books from Sonlight's P4/5 (and from attempting to have him follow any multi-step directions) that auditory memory is an issue. He seems to have a lot of trouble with things like puzzles, visualizing how pieces can be turned around to fit together, patterns, etc. I was wondering if these test results could somehow point to strengths/weaknesses that I was missing.